[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

Rethinking The Allianceby Dariush Shirazidariushshirazi@hotmail.com
Many on the left, most visibly Presidential contender John Kerry, often claim that the "coalition of the willing" is weak and that participation from the international community has been minimal if anything. Opponents of President Bush use such claims in order to discredit the legitimacy of this noble endeavor for freedom. It may not be such a bad idea to look at the state of our coalition, not in an effort to attack President Bush, but rather to conduct a healthy reassessment and critique of the coalition and our allies.

Several weeks ago, Michael Rubin returned from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, and upon his return resigned from the Pentagon. In recent weeks Mr. Rubin has expressed his views regarding the region, most notably illustrating the many links between the Islamic clerical regime in Iran and much of the violence that has broken out across Iraq, evident in the actions of Al Sadr and his fanatical brigade who have reportedly received millions of dollars in funding from the mullahs in Iran.

An article published in the Telegraph of London yesterday quoted Mr. Rubin's sentiments that "British officials clearly had little interest in pursuing the White House vision of a democratic Iraq, a keystone of its foreign policy, and were too 'soft' in confronting dissent." The article goes on to say that "many US officials had been startled at their British counterparts' attempts to capitalize on their presence in southern Iraq for a 'freelance' fostering of ties with Iran, one of Washington's most implacable enemies." The article also discusses the tension between Paul Bremer and his British counterpart, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, by quoting a provisional authority insider who said, "There was an understanding in the CPA that Bremer and Greenstock didn't like each other. It personified the differences between the two views. Greenstock thought Bremer was naive; Bremer thought Greenstock was pursuing the wrong policies."

It is no big surprise to many who have followed the region's history and the mullahcracy's economic ties with nations who proclaim to be supporters in the War on Terror, that such concerns are now gaining visibility. Because we cannot continue to escape the truth by thinking of this historic conflict in the same superficial light the media shines on it, we are obliged to look carefully at the fact that the British government has been a staunch supporter of the regime in Iran since the early days of the Islamic Republic, although this relationship has scarcely been mentioned until now. Mr. Rubin's statements represent some of the first high-level public acknowledgments of this worrisome arrangement.

Michael Rubin's resignation is not the first of its kind. Richard Perle, a strong supporter of freedom throughout the Middle East, resigned from the Defense Policy Board in February. These resignations and statements that have recently surfaced all raise the question: are the so-called "neocons", or those who believe in America's duty to nurture and defend freedom throughout the world, including Iran, unhappy with the direction in which the Bush administration is now headed, and is it perhaps even plausible to suggest that the ideology of the Richard Armitage/Colin Powell types, who believe Iran is a "sort-of" democracy, gaining ground?

We cannot forget that the the British have contributed around 10,000 troops to the Iraqi theater, but as Americans, should we really be thankful? British deployments have been exclusively located in regions of Iraq that have been uncannily stable since the fall of Saddam's regime, a region that is also heavily Shiite. Dozens of reports have been issued that explain the influx of Islamic-regime sponsored agents and clerics since the US invasion, but why aren't British forces who occupy Shiite regions in southeastern Iraq, an ideological safe haven and staging ground for the Mullah's agents, experiencing the same sort of turbulence that American soldiers are experiencing elsewhere? Of course these are all questions, but they are questions that need to be asked, because if it is determined that there is some correlation between resistance that certain coalition forces (American soldiers) are facing and British trade agreements with Iran, then perhaps the United States should ask the Mullahs to bestow similar kindness to American forces.

Considering the importance of this momentous effort to free the people of the Middle East (both Arabs and Persians), it is critical that the allies of liberty, human rights and justice all have the same goals and objectives in mind, because in the end there is only one kind of freedom. If it is discovered to be the case that a particular ally has objectives that are not in alignment with ours, then it is better we address this problem sooner rather than later, before we reach the point of no return.

Forward-thinking analysts and intellectuals rightfully believe that in order for Iraq to stabilize and institutions of freedom and justice to succeed, the regime in Iran must fall. A free and democratic Iraq would be a major blow to the Mullahs, which would likely result in an overthrow of the regime, and the only thing the Mullahs fear more than an all out military assault against their nuclear sites is the overthrow of their illegitimate mafia rule. They will use all means available to prevent such a scenario; they will continue to stir unrest throughout Iraq, with hopes that democracy will not rise and President Bush will not be re-elected.

Ultimately, the question we should be demanding that the Bush Administration, Congress and Senate ask themselves is: if the British have close economic ties and relationships with the regime in Iran, but are also part of the coalition to bring freedom to the peoples of the region, does such an arrangement signify a conflict of interest, and if it does, how should such a conflict be resolved? As the battle wages, the only “wrong policy” is to accuse the United States of being "naive" in our struggle to bring freedom to those who shed tears of blood as they await their liberation.

Dariush Shirazi is a pseudonym of an Iranian-American university student and Los Angeles-based freelance journalist who can be reached at dariushshirazi@hotmail.com

I totally agree, and think it's best that US asks the Coalition to SIGN & SEAL an AGREEMENT by which they would all PROMISE:

A Free Democratic and Secular Iraq.

I think this is long due, and it should have been signed at the beginning.
It is important that the Coalition Clarifies its Mandate in Iraq, for the People of Iraq and the world.
They are so 'scared' of eliminating these Clerics of political scene when Both the Iraqis and the Clerics know that "men of God" have no business in Politics!

Parts of the Coalition has been trying hard to bring Iran-Iraq clerics the political scenes! At the same time many high ranking clerics in Najaf and Qum are clearly stating "clerics are not equipped to run a government!"

I think these true high ranking clerics should be invited to a round table and clearly state their wish to stay aside from the political structure of Iraq. as well as the People of Iraq should be asked to come out of their hidden place after years of suppression, hold their flag high, face their future and discuss their wishes and have their voiced heard in Iraqi & International MEDIA.

I've watched President Bush's meeting with Tony Blair at the White House..

Great speech by Bush on his strong committement to bring Democracy and Freedom to the ME

Yet, there are some points he missed and should correct:

1) Do not trust the U.N. to supervise the Iraqi Elections: the U.N. has often favored corrupt regimes (look at Rwanda, where it has excused Hutu ). The recent Oil-For-Food scandal gives no hope that U.N. might be impartial in the Iraqi democratization process.

In my opinion, UN must have no role in Iraq..

2)A Better world is only possible once a Free Iran is established.

3)He would have had to force the Palestinians to crack down on the terrorist organizations and say no to a palestinian state till a new democratically-elected leadership is in the power.

There are too many anti-democracy countries in the Middle East. I see no need for one more non-democratic arab country..

For the rest, he's right to support Sharon and ignore the Europeans and British's demands for a more "balanced" stance on that issue.

He made clear that he won't support any plan aimed to destroy the Israeli state,which might be the so-called "right of return" of now-syrians,jordanians and egyptians palestinian "refugees"..

Rather, he must ask the arab states for the right of return of all those poor jews expelled by their leggittimate homes in the arab countries.

As for Iran, dear members, i agree 100% with you.. Let's keep the pressure on the US politicians and the President.

Thanks for that post! It sheds light on a lot of little things that have been bothering me.

Some months ago, Debka reported that Iran and Britain had made a secret deal whereby Iran wouldn't target British troops in return for the Brits looking the other way while the IRI's boys snuck across the border into Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tony Blair and I think British culture is great. But I wonder if those folks in London have ever really bought into the democracy thing ... you know, 1776 and all that ...

And while I'm sure we're all grateful for the Ayatollah's insights on human rights, it is the determination of ordinary people that will bring about freedom and democracy. We must continue to reach out to our fellow citizens in Western countries and pressure our governments to uphold these principles.

Some months ago, Debka reported that Iran and Britain had made a secret deal whereby Iran wouldn't target British troops in return for the Brits looking the other way while the IRI's boys snuck across the border into Iraq.

... I wonder if those folks in London have ever really bought into the democracy thing ... you know, 1776 and all that ...

Totally agree with you on that dear asher.
and think I have a pretty good idea about when and where this AGREEMENT was FINALIZED!

And while I'm sure we're all grateful for the Ayatollah's insights on human rights, it is the determination of ordinary people that will bring about freedom and democracy. We must continue to reach out to our fellow citizens in Western countries and pressure our governments to uphold these principles.

BTW and slightly O/T, I've started a blog. Web button.

Asher-man, good work on the blog. I definitely believe that the continued popularity and value of blogs is on the rise and that this will definintely put pressure the major media to change their wise - become more analytical from more of an objective standpoint, and perhaps develop some of the blogging-styles and techniques.

BTW: The Ayatollahs have no insights at all on human rights or anything.. They have no insight period! They are simply muderers - it doesn't take a brain to kill._________________IRANIANS UNITEPERSIA LIVES ON!!FREE IRAN NOW!

I totally agree, and think it's best that US asks the Coalition to SIGN & SEAL an AGREEMENT by which they would all PROMISE:

A Free Democratic and Secular Iraq.

I think this is long due, and it should have been signed at the beginning.
It is important that the Coalition Clarifies its Mandate in Iraq, for the People of Iraq and the world.
They are so 'scared' of eliminating these Clerics of political scene when Both the Iraqis and the Clerics know that "men of God" have no business in Politics!

Parts of the Coalition has been trying hard to bring Iran-Iraq clerics the political scenes! At the same time many high ranking clerics in Najaf and Qum are clearly stating "clerics are not equipped to run a government!"

I think these true high ranking clerics should be invited to a round table and clearly state their wish to stay aside from the political structure of Iraq. as well as the People of Iraq should be asked to come out of their hidden place after years of suppression, hold their flag high, face their future and discuss their wishes and have their voiced heard in Iraqi

& International MEDIA.

The US really needs to draw the line with clerics in Iraq and stop kissing their asses all the time. Don't they see what happened with the clerics in Iran? Or do we want another Iran that we'll trade with, repress and exploit the people and country. It's totally possible, you never know.. Time to get rid of the Mullahs - and all clerics, send them straight to the mosques and tell them not to come out._________________IRANIANS UNITEPERSIA LIVES ON!!FREE IRAN NOW!